Replies

I don't know how to transfer from original. But, I clicked on hyperlink for below: Appendix, Supplemental Analyses, and References However, graphs did not transfer: do go there for stats etc from original URL ---------------------------------------------------------- Are we witnessing a dishonest election? A between state comparison based on the used voting procedures of the 2016 Democratic Party Primary for the Presidency of the United States of America Axel Geijsel Tilburg University – The Netherlands Rodolfo Cortes Barragan Stanford University – U.S.A. June 7, 2016 “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.” Abraham Lincoln “No one has yet figured out a straightforward method of ensuring that one of the most revered democratic institutions – in this case, electing a U.S. president – can be double checked for fraud, particularly when paperless evoting systems are used.” Larry Greenemeier, Scientific American Summary Statement Given the stakes in the outcome of the American presidential elections, ensuring the integrity of the electoral process is of the utmost importance. Are the results we are witnessing in the 2016 primary elections trustworthy? While Donald Trump enjoyed a clear and early edge over his Republican rivals, the Democratic contest between former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Senator Bernard Sanders has been far more competitive. At present, Secretary Clinton enjoys an apparent advantage over Sanders. Is this claimed advantage legitimate? We contend that it is not, and suggest an explanation for the advantage: States that are at risk for election fraud in 2016 systematically and overwhelmingly favor Secretary Clinton. We provide converging evidence for this claim. First, we show that it is possible to detect irregularities in the 2016 Democratic Primaries by comparing the states that have hard paper evidence of all the placed votes to states that do not have this hard paper evidence. Second, we compare the final results in 2016 to the discrepant exit polls. Furthermore, we show that no such irregularities occurred in the 2008 competitive election cycle involving Secretary Clinton against President Obama. As such, we find that in states wherein voting fraud has the highest potential to occur, systematic efforts may have taken place to provide Secretary Clinton with an exaggerated margin of support. Different outcomes in primary states with paper trails and without paper trails Data procurement: Given the potential that the underlying voting number has been corrupted, we had to restrict our analysis to a proxy: the percentage of delegates won by Secretary Clinton and Senator Sanders. To group states according to the accountability of the vote, we used Ballotpedia and created two groups. First, there are 18 states that feature voting procedures wherein the accuracy of electoral results of a primary ballot vote are backed by a paper trail. Second, there are 13 states that do not have such a paper trail. Analysis: The [data] show a statistically significant difference between the groups. States without paper trails yielded higher support for Secretary Clinton, (M no paper trail = 65.13%, SD = no paper trail = 10.41%) than states with paper trails (M paper trail = 48.53%, SD = paper trail = 16.00%), t(29) = 3.21, P = 0.003, d = 1.19 [Figure 1]. As such, the potential for election fraud in voting procedures is strongly related to enhanced electoral outcomes for Secretary Clinton. In the Appendix, we show that this relationship holds even above and beyond alternative explanations, including the prevailing political ideology and the changes in support over time. Supplemental analysis on caucus states : Does the pattern seen in ballot states occur in caucus states? By the very nature of caucusing procedures, caucus results are generally thought to be more trustworthy. However, in the current Democratic caucusing cycle, Iowa and Nevada had caucuses widely alleged to have involved a considerable level of voter suppression and potential fraud. We examined the [ data] and found that these two states had far higher support for Secretary Clinton, [M fraud allegations = 54.71%, SD = fraud allegation = 3.44%] than the other caucus states, [M no fraud allegations = 31.61%, SD = no fraud allegations = 9.98%], t independent means (11) = 3.13, P = 0.009, d = 3.10. Anomalies exist between exit polls and final results Data procurement: We obtained exit poll data from a database kept by an expert on the American elections. Analysis: On the overall, are the exit polls different from the final results? Yes they are. The data show lower support for Secretary Clinton in exit polls than the final results would suggest, [M exit = 54.38%, SD = exit = 13.95%; M final = 57.52%, SD = final = 13.87%], t dependent means (23) = 3.49, P = 0.002, d = 0.71. While an effect size of 0.71 is quite substantial, and suggests a considerable difference between exit polls and outcomes, we expected that this difference would be even more exaggerated in states without paper voting trails. Indeed, the effect size in states without paper voting trails is considerably larger: 1.50, and yields more exaggerated support for the Secretary in the hours following the exit polls [M exit = 62.93%, SD = exit = 8.80%; M final = 65.68%, SD = final = 9.52%], t dependent means (9) = 4.68, P < 0.001. In contrast, the effect size is much smaller in states with paper trails, [M exit = 48.28%, SD = exit = 13.94%; M final = 51.69%, SD = final = 13.77%], t dependent means (13) = 2.27, P = 0.04, d = 0.58. Irregularities are unique to 2016 To show that the pattern of votes may suggest a systematic effort to undercut Senator Sanders, we must show that no such patterns were in place in similar elections. Given that Secretary Clinton lost to President Obama in 2008, their data is a natural control and the best possible point of comparison for the 2016 data. Thus, as we did for 2016, we tabulated the percentage of delegates won in each state by (then Senator) Hillary Clinton. The data show that, contrary to the 2016 data, there is no evidence that primary states without paper trails favored Senator Clinton in 2008, P = 0.38. As such, the patterns of 2016 are different from their best point of comparison. Conclusion Are we witnessing a dishonest election? Our first analysis showed that states wherein the voting outcomes are difficult to verify show far greater support for Secretary Clinton. Second, our examination of exit polling suggested large differences between the respondents that took the exit polls and the claimed voters in the final tally. Beyond these points, these irregular patterns of results did not exist in 2008. As such, as a whole, these data suggest that election fraud is occurring in the 2016 Democratic Party Presidential Primary election. This fraud has overwhelmingly benefited Secretary Clinton at the expense of Senator Sanders. Figure 1. Percent of support for Clinton and Sanders by state voting paper trail status. Appendix, Supplemental Analyses, and References

OK I tried to transfer APPENDIX to WORD, but I am not techie (56 pages)
ALSO, there is an outline to appendix on the far left that I cannot copy. I did copy reference hyperlinks & added to bottom of this post.

“There is no reason to trust insiders in the elections industry.” - Jimmy Carter

August 8th update: More reports from various states will soon be uploaded here, along with the data. As of now, we have responded at length to our critics here. Please note that this is a living document (more data becomes available to us every day.) We appreciate those readers who are now inspecting their own countries. Please let us know if you need any additional help with your efforts. In regards to peer review, we will seek publication in an academic journal at a later time. Rather than keeping the information to ourselves, we wanted people to engage with the data. Please contact us if you have any questions or suggestions: a.geijsel@tilburguniversity.edu, cortes@stanford.edu. If you are able to help us in our effort, please visit our GoFundMe. Thank you.

Following our main initial report, here are the main take-aways from our extensive investigation:

1. Clinton overperformed the polls only in states that are vulnerable to electronic hacking.
2. Clinton’s strong performance can be traced to strong performance with African-Americans, but that doesn’t tell the full story: Even when we adjust for this alternative explanation in all sorts of ways, Clinton still performed better in states that are most vulnerable to electronic hacking (to reduce overfitting and multicollinearity we suggest trying models that merge Latinos/Asians and dropping European-Americans who are indirectly represented in resulting models.)
a. Download data on Clinton’s popular vote %, Census 2010 ethnic breakdowns by state, and paper/no paper trail.
3. Exit polls were particularly “off” in states that were most vulnerable to electronic hacking.
4. Clinton’s performance boost in these types of states did not occur in 2008 (Obama did not benefit either.)
5. It is easy to do a close inspection of some states, such as Louisiana. All of the machines in use in Louisiana are the AVC Advantage machines, which Princeton Computer Science Professor Andrew Appel describes as hackable. Our close analysis of Louisiana revealed anomalies that favored Clinton in 85% of the counties. The Republicans did seem not benefit from the statistical anomaly in any of the counties.
a. Download Republican data: Note the flatness of the curves (results in smaller precincts are similar to results in larger precincts)
b. Download Democratic data: Note the steepness of the curves (results in larger precincts tend to favor Clinton).
c. Note that according to polls, Clinton was expected to get around 60%. The official result showed her at 71%.
d. This doesn’t seem to reflect racial factors (the pattern shows up heavily White counties and in heavily African-American counties), and it doesn’t reflect urban vs. rural divide since large cities can often have small precincts and small towns can often have big precincts
e. Potential explanation: One theory that others have advanced for this is that, if anyone were to attempt to hack electronic voting machines, they may choose to do it in larger precincts (lots of votes.) Overall, one would expect that, within the same geographical area (a county), the vote should be similar at larger and smaller precincts. However, this principle is violated for larger precincts only in the Democratic race.
6. Two of the three main voting machine companies (Dominion Voting and Hart Intercivic, through H.I.G. Capital) are donors to the Clinton Foundation [Check Guccifer 2.0’s spreadsheet.] This brings up issues of private companies being involved in public elections. It does NOT mean the companies hacked the vote. Anyone with knowledge and access could potentially influence the machines (see report from Professor Appel.)

We will have more to say about the rest of the states soon (we will show data at the level of detail that we did for Louisiana.) Other states do not provide their data in as user-friendly form as Louisiana.